Re: + x86-add-support-for-pud-sized-transparent-hugepages-checkpatch-fixes.patch added to -mm tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 08:48:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > @@ -111,8 +111,10 @@ static inline pud_t native_pudp_get_and_
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >  	return native_make_pud(xchg(&pudp->pud, 0));
> > >  #else
> > > -	/* native_local_pudp_get_and_clear,
> > > -	   but duplicated because of cyclic dependency */
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * native_local_pudp_get_and_clear, but duplicated because of cyclic
> > > +	 * dependency
> > > +	 */
> > >  	pud_t ret = *pudp;
> > >  	native_pud_clear(pudp);
> > >  	return ret;
> > 
> > When referring to functions in comments (or changelogs) please use () to make it 
> > clear on sight what is being referred to.
> > 
> > Also, please try to construct proper English sentences with verbs and such!
> > 
> > I.e. something like this would work for me:
> > 
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * This is a duplicate of native_local_pudp_get_and_clear(),
> > > +	 * because we cannot use the original due to a cyclic header
> > > +	 * file dependency:
> > > +	 */
> > 
> > (Assuming I managed to decode the shorthand form properly.)
> 
> I have no idea what it means.  This is copy-and-change of the pmd version,
> which was originally commit db3eb96f4e6281b84dd33c8980dacc27f2efe177 by
> Andrea.

It means that we don't want to copy-and-change a crappy comment that slipped 
through 5 years ago, we want to copy-and-improve. I even suggested the comment 
improvement (which needs to be checked though).

> It seems unfair to ask me to do better than what is there right now.

It's absolutely fair for maintainers to require the improvement of existing code 
you want to modify, especially when you are complicating existing code ...

Thanks,

	Ingo